From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Uncyclopedia:Village Dump.

Contents

GS

Regarding GS. I have unblocked him at the promise of no more vandalism, i.e. behaving. If he vandalizes, I will nuke the entire 71.* FIOS block and start writing proxy autoblock scripts, and request rejection at the squids. That means don't block him unless it's vandalism, and if it is, well... 71.241.0.0/16 looks good. --Chronarion 19:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This user has found Jesus, and is therefore no longer a threat to society.

I think it'd be nice to have the main points of BGBU right on the account creation/login page. I've made an example of what it could look like at MediaWiki talk:Loginend. The page that controls the message is, shockingly, MediaWiki:Loginend. Look at Wikipedia's create account page for an example of how it would look. This being suggested by me, everyone will oppose and tell me to fuck off. So I'll go ahead and get us started and oppose my own goddamn idea. General Specific 21:50, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

For gratuitous use of {{Lang|en|P}}. As for the rest, I don't know the first thing about MediaWiki, sorry. Oh, and fuck off. (Just trying to beat the crowd) -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 22:01, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just an FYI, General_Specific is now infinitely banned from this wiki. He was warned over and over that harrassment of uncyclopedia users either here or on IRC would result in a ban here. Some brief quotes:

<_KP_> I think that you could put that energy into some positive contributions on Uncyclopedia.
<General_Specific> never
<_KP_> So, is Uncyclopedia unimportant to you?
<General_Specific> the day i make a legitimate contribution is the day you stop being annoying

* General_Specific (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
<General_Specific> omfg
<General_Specific> bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob you suck
* General_Specific is now known as Bob_Loblaw
<Bob_Loblaw> better name that your bs
<Bob_Loblaw> such a good show
Bob_Loblaw> except assholes like you who prolly watch war at home or such trash got it cancelled
* BobBobBob_ sucks
<Bob_Loblaw> HAHAHAHAHAHA
<Bob_Loblaw> someone took your name
* Bob_Loblaw is now known as General_Specific
* Splarka (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
<Splarka> HAHAHAHAHA SPLARKA LIKES CHILD PORN
Splarka> I MUST REVEAL IT
* Splarka has quit IRC (Client Quit)

While I in no way support this, kudos on using an old standard like goatse. That sort of vandalizm has taste and class, and is a throwback of a bygone era when there were real trolls and fearsome beasties only a click away. If you've gotta do it, do it right! You'll still get banned, but that's a job done right there. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 01:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Easy for you to say. You weren't the one who had to access the images to delete them... --—rc(t) 02:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this post will get deleted. It's not exactly vandalism, but I am ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop me. Oh well. -- You know who ~~

The previous post has been deleted. It wasn't exactly vandalism, but it was ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop its poster. --Spintherism 04:13, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think it's high time you just range ban the motherfucker and be done with it. I don't want to see Goatse any more than I have to. --Sir FlammableKUN 18:24, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

71-241-250.0/24 is blocked for now. I may expand the block to all of FIOS DC. --Chronarion 18:38, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"This article or section should be merged with [[{{{1}}}]], because one head is better than two. Wait, that can't be right..."

Sometimes the situation that arises is this: User 1 who thinks they're being helpful puts Merge templates on two articles that they feel should be merged. Before consensus is reached on whether to merge or not and as to what contents should end up in the merged article, helpful User 2 comes by and does the merger themselves. The merger may be done incorrectly, as some good content in one of the articles might be lost while the other article's content might remain unchanged.

If an article is to be merged, in my view it should be done after consensus (which is the prescribed procedure already). Sometimes there are valid reasons for both articles continuing to exist (i.e., different focus and direction). And if the merger is to be done, any good content from both articles should be present in the merged article.

I would suggest revisions to the Merge template to clarify that mergers are not to be done until after consensus is reached. Consideration should also be given to having the template indicate that only an administrator or other delegated person for the purpose is to do the actual move, in order to ensure that the move is not done prematurely and that there results no loss in good content. There should also be mention on the template that the merger of contents must be flagged in the edit summary as a "merger" so that it can be verified for its accuracy. I would also suggest that, iIf there is to be merger without any of the contents of one of the articles being incorporated in the merged article, this should also be noted in the edit summary.

Depends why the article had been tagged for merge. In some cases, it's a pair of valid articles on the same topic, but in others it's a heap of tiny fragments (such as individual campers at Camp Fuck You Die) which should've never been separate articles and all belong to one main entry. I can't see voting on merging heaps of two-line fragments back into a main article if they're only linked from that article, but perhaps the template should at least point to a 'help' page so that anyone doing the merge knows to redirect (and not blank) the originals and to document the change as having been a merge. --Carlb 02:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

How about this. Put in the main merge template "Note, this page should only be merged by the main author(s) of the page(s) in question, or an admin. Not by someone just showing up here and noticing this notice. This notice is for the page(s)'s authors" (but phrased better). And then, we would transwiki Wikipedia:Template:Mergefrom and Wikipedia:Template:Mergeto to use for things like vanity satellite cruft, with messages like "These pages are too lonely on their own and really need to be put back in their proper place before they get huffed!". Mostly when I see things like that, I delete them and un-wikify the page they came from and leave a Template:Vanity on the page. --Splaka 04:23, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too restrictive. "The authors of this page are encouraged to merge its content to (articlename) and redirect this page there."? --Carlb 09:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yes, that could reduce the incidence of improvidential/inaccurate merges by persons who aren't editors of the articles. That would require revision of the Merge template for the 'disappearing' article. Would we also be creating a Merge template for the 'destination' article? --Ogopogo 04:30, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo! Two VD Topics in a Row!! Anyways, I have used Template:Q on some of the quotes I have seen with the "raw" quote format written out. I think that Template:Q should get a lot more use. I've also just created Template:Q2. Template:Q2 is supposed to match Template:Oscar the way Template:Q matches Template:Wilde.

I plan on going on my own little fight now to make as many of the quotes that are just written out fit in either the Q or Q2 templats. This obviously isn't a problem. The other thing I'd like to do, that I think I should get permission from admins from, is to replace quotes in other templats such as Template:Churchill or Template:Einstein, etc. Obviously the holy Template:Wilde will still be left intact, I only have it out for the other templates.

Anyone else who wants to get in on the action, by all means, do so. --neoEva88 00:59, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok for now as long as you are replacing (replacing VFD templates, and raw code, with Q that is) and not adding. Be very frugal when adding quotes during this timeperiod ^_^. --Splaka 01:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth changing the other templates (Template:Churchill or whomever) so that the template itself uses the {{Q}} and {{Q2}}, much like many of the various stub templates use Template:Allstubs and its variants? That way, the rest of the conversion may be possible by using {{subst:...}} with the old template name. --Carlb 01:20, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, Famine and Codeine and I are on a quest to remove most canned templates (28 of them when I nominated them) in general (and some infrequently used variable ones). See Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/templates. The survivors (if any) can be converted to Template:Q (or Template:Quote but that is a bit messy to try to use), but it should wait until after the issue is decided, imho.--Splaka 01:26, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Addendum, any templates that appear likely to be deleted on the above VFD page, could be searched and replaced with Q (or just removed from their pages if unneded). See this page for a quick link to a list on each one of where they are. -Sp

The approach I was considering was:

Edit the individual template (I've just tried it with Template:Churchill as an example) to use {{Q}} or {{Q2}}

Edit each of the article(s) using the template to replace {{churchill|whatever...} with {{subst:churchill|whatever}}

At this point, the article(s) contain {{Q}} or {{Q2}} and the old Template:Churchill may be safely huffed. Byebye!

Only problem so far is that the {{templatevfd}} stuff is finding its way in to the main text and needs removal. Otherwise, looks do-able. --Carlb 01:30, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ahh I see! That is doable. You could remove the VFD notice on each quote one at a time, subst them in, and then put the notice back. Feel free to do that if you think it will work. BTW, Churchill and Byron are the only two that will probably survive the VFD. Ow my brain hurts. --Splaka 01:54, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

GS

Regarding GS. I have unblocked him at the promise of no more vandalism, i.e. behaving. If he vandalizes, I will nuke the entire 71.* FIOS block and start writing proxy autoblock scripts, and request rejection at the squids. That means don't block him unless it's vandalism, and if it is, well... 71.241.0.0/16 looks good. --Chronarion 19:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This user has found Jesus, and is therefore no longer a threat to society.

I think it'd be nice to have the main points of BGBU right on the account creation/login page. I've made an example of what it could look like at MediaWiki talk:Loginend. The page that controls the message is, shockingly, MediaWiki:Loginend. Look at Wikipedia's create account page for an example of how it would look. This being suggested by me, everyone will oppose and tell me to fuck off. So I'll go ahead and get us started and oppose my own goddamn idea. General Specific 21:50, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

For gratuitous use of {{Lang|en|P}}. As for the rest, I don't know the first thing about MediaWiki, sorry. Oh, and fuck off. (Just trying to beat the crowd) -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 22:01, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just an FYI, General_Specific is now infinitely banned from this wiki. He was warned over and over that harrassment of uncyclopedia users either here or on IRC would result in a ban here. Some brief quotes:

<_KP_> I think that you could put that energy into some positive contributions on Uncyclopedia.
<General_Specific> never
<_KP_> So, is Uncyclopedia unimportant to you?
<General_Specific> the day i make a legitimate contribution is the day you stop being annoying

* General_Specific (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
<General_Specific> omfg
<General_Specific> bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob you suck
* General_Specific is now known as Bob_Loblaw
<Bob_Loblaw> better name that your bs
<Bob_Loblaw> such a good show
Bob_Loblaw> except assholes like you who prolly watch war at home or such trash got it cancelled
* BobBobBob_ sucks
<Bob_Loblaw> HAHAHAHAHAHA
<Bob_Loblaw> someone took your name
* Bob_Loblaw is now known as General_Specific
* Splarka (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia
<Splarka> HAHAHAHAHA SPLARKA LIKES CHILD PORN
Splarka> I MUST REVEAL IT
* Splarka has quit IRC (Client Quit)

While I in no way support this, kudos on using an old standard like goatse. That sort of vandalizm has taste and class, and is a throwback of a bygone era when there were real trolls and fearsome beasties only a click away. If you've gotta do it, do it right! You'll still get banned, but that's a job done right there. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 01:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Easy for you to say. You weren't the one who had to access the images to delete them... --—rc(t) 02:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this post will get deleted. It's not exactly vandalism, but I am ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop me. Oh well. -- You know who ~~

The previous post has been deleted. It wasn't exactly vandalism, but it was ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop its poster. --Spintherism 04:13, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think it's high time you just range ban the motherfucker and be done with it. I don't want to see Goatse any more than I have to. --Sir FlammableKUN 18:24, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

71-241-250.0/24 is blocked for now. I may expand the block to all of FIOS DC. --Chronarion 18:38, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

"This article or section should be merged with [[{{{1}}}]], because one head is better than two. Wait, that can't be right..."

Sometimes the situation that arises is this: User 1 who thinks they're being helpful puts Merge templates on two articles that they feel should be merged. Before consensus is reached on whether to merge or not and as to what contents should end up in the merged article, helpful User 2 comes by and does the merger themselves. The merger may be done incorrectly, as some good content in one of the articles might be lost while the other article's content might remain unchanged.

If an article is to be merged, in my view it should be done after consensus (which is the prescribed procedure already). Sometimes there are valid reasons for both articles continuing to exist (i.e., different focus and direction). And if the merger is to be done, any good content from both articles should be present in the merged article.

I would suggest revisions to the Merge template to clarify that mergers are not to be done until after consensus is reached. Consideration should also be given to having the template indicate that only an administrator or other delegated person for the purpose is to do the actual move, in order to ensure that the move is not done prematurely and that there results no loss in good content. There should also be mention on the template that the merger of contents must be flagged in the edit summary as a "merger" so that it can be verified for its accuracy. I would also suggest that, iIf there is to be merger without any of the contents of one of the articles being incorporated in the merged article, this should also be noted in the edit summary.

Depends why the article had been tagged for merge. In some cases, it's a pair of valid articles on the same topic, but in others it's a heap of tiny fragments (such as individual campers at Camp Fuck You Die) which should've never been separate articles and all belong to one main entry. I can't see voting on merging heaps of two-line fragments back into a main article if they're only linked from that article, but perhaps the template should at least point to a 'help' page so that anyone doing the merge knows to redirect (and not blank) the originals and to document the change as having been a merge. --Carlb 02:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

How about this. Put in the main merge template "Note, this page should only be merged by the main author(s) of the page(s) in question, or an admin. Not by someone just showing up here and noticing this notice. This notice is for the page(s)'s authors" (but phrased better). And then, we would transwiki Wikipedia:Template:Mergefrom and Wikipedia:Template:Mergeto to use for things like vanity satellite cruft, with messages like "These pages are too lonely on their own and really need to be put back in their proper place before they get huffed!". Mostly when I see things like that, I delete them and un-wikify the page they came from and leave a Template:Vanity on the page. --Splaka 04:23, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too restrictive. "The authors of this page are encouraged to merge its content to (articlename) and redirect this page there."? --Carlb 09:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yes, that could reduce the incidence of improvidential/inaccurate merges by persons who aren't editors of the articles. That would require revision of the Merge template for the 'disappearing' article. Would we also be creating a Merge template for the 'destination' article? --Ogopogo 04:30, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo! Two VD Topics in a Row!! Anyways, I have used Template:Q on some of the quotes I have seen with the "raw" quote format written out. I think that Template:Q should get a lot more use. I've also just created Template:Q2. Template:Q2 is supposed to match Template:Oscar the way Template:Q matches Template:Wilde.

I plan on going on my own little fight now to make as many of the quotes that are just written out fit in either the Q or Q2 templats. This obviously isn't a problem. The other thing I'd like to do, that I think I should get permission from admins from, is to replace quotes in other templats such as Template:Churchill or Template:Einstein, etc. Obviously the holy Template:Wilde will still be left intact, I only have it out for the other templates.

Anyone else who wants to get in on the action, by all means, do so. --neoEva88 00:59, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds ok for now as long as you are replacing (replacing VFD templates, and raw code, with Q that is) and not adding. Be very frugal when adding quotes during this timeperiod ^_^. --Splaka 01:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth changing the other templates (Template:Churchill or whomever) so that the template itself uses the {{Q}} and {{Q2}}, much like many of the various stub templates use Template:Allstubs and its variants? That way, the rest of the conversion may be possible by using {{subst:...}} with the old template name. --Carlb 01:20, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, Famine and Codeine and I are on a quest to remove most canned templates (28 of them when I nominated them) in general (and some infrequently used variable ones). See Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/templates. The survivors (if any) can be converted to Template:Q (or Template:Quote but that is a bit messy to try to use), but it should wait until after the issue is decided, imho.--Splaka 01:26, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Addendum, any templates that appear likely to be deleted on the above VFD page, could be searched and replaced with Q (or just removed from their pages if unneded). See this page for a quick link to a list on each one of where they are. -Sp

The approach I was considering was:

Edit the individual template (I've just tried it with Template:Churchill as an example) to use {{Q}} or {{Q2}}

Edit each of the article(s) using the template to replace {{churchill|whatever...} with {{subst:churchill|whatever}}

At this point, the article(s) contain {{Q}} or {{Q2}} and the old Template:Churchill may be safely huffed. Byebye!

Only problem so far is that the {{templatevfd}} stuff is finding its way in to the main text and needs removal. Otherwise, looks do-able. --Carlb 01:30, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ahh I see! That is doable. You could remove the VFD notice on each quote one at a time, subst them in, and then put the notice back. Feel free to do that if you think it will work. BTW, Churchill and Byron are the only two that will probably survive the VFD. Ow my brain hurts. --Splaka 01:54, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Help! The George Lucas article has become a Wikipedia article! Apart from the amusing quotes at the top of the page the rest of the page is an accurate biography of George Lucas. The problem was so enormous that I was too lazy to do anything about it.
-- User:Cantbebotheredtomakeaccount

Actually, it looks like some of the plagarism is a recent addition. I'll find an appropriate plagarism template and post something at the DUMP to see if some of our British-oriented folks can addresse the probleme. -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 20:04, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Featured article now going to mailing list

Go join Uncyclopedia-L. At my brilliant suggestion, Rcmurphy is now posting the featured article blurb to the list every second day when he changes the feature. This will (1) remind you to look at Uncyclopedia (2) be an actual use for the mailing list - David Gerard 08:03, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Mailing lists are old school (in a good way). How about an RSS feed? (If no one else is up for it, I might actually give it a try) --Paulgb 02:18, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea. I have maintained plenty of RSS feeds before. I'll give this a shot.(Please know I suck at PHP, so this will be manual update.)--Foo21 03:10, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. I noticed that the Vtamn is very close to the Vitamin in terms of words and contents, many differences being accounted for by lost vowels. Perhaps Vtamn could be deleted and any funny content in Vtamn that's not already in Vitamin be moved into Vitamin. --Ogopogo 04:07, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

After an amazingly successful first run, several high quality articles have come together. Right now, the voting process for selecting the next 5 articles to colonize is winding down, so be sure to vote for one you feel is worthy of a collaborative effort! ~Sir RangeleyGUNWotMUotMEGA+S (talk) 16:17, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What frightens me the most is that 1.11% of people who come here have come to read about anal bleeding. I worry about that. A lot. But hey, at least it's one of our historic old articles they come to see!! SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 14:01, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Edit message

I'm a Mediawiki: space addict, I have to admit. I've changed the edit message. Seemed to go down OK on #uncyclopedia just now when we were discussing the amount of crap we get, and how our shoot-on-sight rate is actually higher than Wikipedia's (200 out of 300/day compared to 2000 out of 4000/day). Old version, current version. The main addition is Be funny and not just stupid. in big letters. Of course, I'm assuming idiots read - David Gerard 23:35, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

New User - Nouveau Utilisateur

This f****r speaks Français heavily laced with profanity that would make a f*****g a*****e sailor blush from all the g*******d blasphemy.

I have been a lurker on Uncyclopedia for quite some time and I really enjoyed many of the articles posted here. I've been wanting to join and contribute for a while now but was reluctant to do so because English is not my native language. I can easily express basic thoughts and ideas but can't be on par with the quality found in most featured pages.
But, well, as you can see, I created an account anyway and gave it a try. I submitted a first article about Goldorak. It's kind of an inside joke but I think it could still be enjoyed by some. Of course, if you want to edit it, by all means, go ahead. Feedback would be appreciated.

Oh, by the way, I'm already working on pictures for this article. Coming soon.

So what is your native language? We have some articles in other languages, and if any of them are yours, feel free to help out. Unfortunately, most of the admins here only speak 31337, bl0G, or American. Some speak moderate amounts of Bân also, but only a few pages here are written in it. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 21:55, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Quebec and my native language is French. I saw some articles that were half-written in French but they never lasted long and one in particular said that no one speaks French anyway. This confused me, seeing how I had the certainty I spoke French. Perhaps my native language is Esperanto after all. --Guinea Fowl 23:13, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The french language has sporked off to Désencyclopédie, a full fledged language-sista. The language code here is kinda empty since then. --Splaka 23:23, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Moi, j'utilise le réglage de clavier "US - International" sur un PC. En linux, c'est "us-acentos", en windows, Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Regional -> Input locales -> Keyboard: US International, allows you to use the standard US keyboard outside the US in order to type in other languages such as Canadian and Mexican. In effect, 'e becomes é with this keyboard layout with no hardware changes. --Carlb 16:23, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but then what excuse would I use for not remembering where to put the damned things? Besides, I wouldn't be able to speak Cockney: Wot did 'e say mum? Bloody! -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 18:23, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Success!

Ok. I figured out a way to sort-of timestamp templates. Categories names (as opposed to the category parameter)! Categories are not updated on templates if the template changes, unless the page the template is on is edited. For most MTU entries the last edit is the MTU tag. And for WIP/Construction pages, we are looking for the unedited old ones to deleteify. So here is how it works. As a test I made a template with the contents: [[Category:Tagged {{CURRENTTIME}}]]. I tagged two pages with it 5 minutes apart, and they appeared in separate categories. Editing one moved it to a new category (the time of the last edit). Now, currenttime is much too variable for categories, as is individual days (365), and months are a bit too few (only 12). So I propose we remake MTU using [[Category:MTU {{CURRENTWEEK}}]]. This will give us at most 54 categories and they do not need to be blue linked (created), you can view the contents of a red category easily by going to the edit page and clicking the first action button. Any existing red (on the list of categories) MTU # categories that are more than two weeks old can be cleaned out of MTU contents. This can also extend to Template:Construction and Template:WIP, as any items categorized as more than two weeks old can get huffed for inactivity. I think this will work, should we try it? With MTU first?

A poll though, should all three templates be grouped into one prefix (eg [[Category:Timestamp {{CURRENTWEEK}}]] or [[Category:Week {{CURRENTWEEK}}]] or [[Category:LastEdit {{CURRENTWEEK}}]]) or should construction/WIP be separate? --Splaka 23:20, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Clever. Will the various (interchangeable) {{rewrite}} tags get some sort of date stamp? In most cases, these aren't stubs, they're flubs. --Carlb 04:19, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, those could benifit from year/month tags probably. How about two category conventions: [[Category:Timestamp Week {{CURRENTWEEK}}]] form MTU/WIP/Construction, and [[Category:Timestamp Month {{CURRENTMONTH}}]] (with year optional) for rewrite/stubs. Optional also is to put in the type of tag in the category, but really, construction/MTU can be deleted side by side. Any edits done to this bump them to the current date, but that lets us kill the ignored ones all the easier. --Splaka 04:25, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Featured Image

Is it just me or is the featured image repeated on a weekly cycle? The same images are used again and again and again and again. Is there a desperate shortage of images on uncyclopedia? We need new featured images damnit! -- User:fjuenvujwncuw

Images are voted for and every week or so the one with the most votes gets added to the pool of images. A random image rotation script is used where each image is weighted based on the number of votes and the current weeks featured image gets a temporary weight of 1/2 of the sum of all the weights combined (so there is a 50% chance this weeks featured image will be shown on page load and then the other 50% is divided up among the other images in the pool.) --Maj Sir InsertwackynamehereCUNVFHVFPBur.CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 20:34, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Admirably explained, Wacky. I've been trying to keep featured images to five-day intervals (the newest one was a bit late, sorry about that). We do not have a shortage of images, trust me. If anything we have too many at the moment. --—rc(t) 06:05, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN

How about we bring some stuff across from Wikipedia's BJAODN? [1] I thought it could be like a wiki project and made a thing about it here: Uncycloproject: Wikipedia BJODN Here's one article which I brought straight across as an example: Typophiles ---- Astrokey44 12:43, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much point in bringing things "straight across" if it doesn't really add anything that isn't already in the original. Also, please don't copy from outside source without attribution - even if they are GFDL. --Carlb 18:04, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Mm. Anything at all is suitable for inspiration, though. (c.f. seeing what humour on Desencyclopedie makes it through one's bad high school French) - David Gerard 08:10, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Month Project

Okay, so, this got started when I was combining a bunch of stub articles into one article in the Wildean Calendar article. I planned only on deleting the stubby made-up months articles, but I took a look at the real months too. I was pretty discouraging, the articles for the real months qualify for deletion about as much as the made-up months articles. So I decided to start this project as a means of improving the quality of month-related articles.

Articles that are crossed out have bee appropriately dealt with. (I like how morbid that last sentence sounds.) Those followed by an exclamation mark really need help because they are real months and thus get more attention. Those in italics are made up months who are either stubs or short one-liners that are planned to only be mentioned in the Wildean Calendar article. Months with a bolded D next two them I think are unfunny and unworthy should simply be deleted. If the article is simply listed, it could use help, but is not in desperate need of it.

I certainly is a big undertaking, help would be appreciated. --neoEva88 00:19, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest setting up a time and standards colonization project. First clean up the months. You may want to create a couple of fake calendar systems if you want to preserve some of the months. So instead of deleting Nowvember, put it as a month within the Bovinian calendar. After the clean up, set of a colonization page for months, days of the weeks, years, units of measurements, etc. --KPCUN 02:38, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Featured!

As you can see at this link, [2], Uncyclopedia has been featured after everyone and their grandmother voted for us. So, congratulations to everyone, and lets hope this will bring Uncyclopedia even more good writers! ~Sir RangeleyGUNWotMUotMEGA+S (talk) 21:29, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, but could the feature mention something about how many newspapers we've been featured in? Then we could maybe have a link to one of my articles since I've been mentioned four times in the papers... just sayin'... --Savethemooses 21:45, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I made it from the hollowed-out skull of my enemy. Er, I mean it's a potato. This was the old logo. --—rc(t) 17:47, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

No seriously, until a few minutes b4 I posted this, I seriously thought it was a rotten egg, and the Wikipedia logo was a regular egg or something --Nerd42 18:04, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're not the first to think it was an egg. The Uncyc logo, I mean. Dunno about the Wikipedia one. --—rc(t) 18:09, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

well, I sorta knew the wikipedia logo was a sphere ... but kind of compared it to an egg, and the uncyclopedia logo made me think it's designer(s) must have made he same comparison. The idea of a puzzle potato hadn't even enered into my brain until this point. What the heck is a puzzle potato anyway? Somebody write an article about it! --Nerd42 19:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo is a sphere made of puzzle pieces. It is simply a logo, it doesnt MEAN anything per se, although I always interpreted it as a World being built one piece at a time, which is metaphorical in a way to its purpose. Uncyclopedia being a parody of Wikipedia, that chose Potatos as one of its defining characteristics resulted in the creation of a potato being pieced together by puzzle pieces. It is a very nice photoshop and a great parody but thats why it was created, just to explain it :P --Maj Sir InsertwackynamehereCUNVFHVFPBur.CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 21:05, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Haha, you're so right! Nobody else would have ever thought of something funny like that. Ok, how about something about how george bush (his name is like pubic hair, lol!!!1) loses his potatoes he was going to give to the secretaries, and then he thinks saddam did it, and he starts a war, but he still can't find the donuts potatoes! That sort of article is just what uncyclopedia doesn't have enought of. --Spintherism 23:26, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

umm ... where was that hi-res version of the logo again? --Nerd42 14:42, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The biggest version I think I've made is here: Image:Puzzle Potato Dry Brush.png. It's the original logo blown up and then run through Photoshop's Dry Brush filter (because the image was so blurry after being expanded). What do you need it for? --—rc(t) 17:32, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I just remember seeing this really awesome image somewhere of a giant, and I do mean huge, uncyclopdia logo, accompanied by an Oscar Wilde quote. It was like, for use as a desktop background or something. I was just thinking of adding a link to it on the Uncyclopedia article only now I can't remember where it was on here ... --Nerd42 20:00, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you must be thinking of Image:TemplateMug3.png. It was meant as a template for a coffee mug for our theoretical Uncyc shop. I actually have another version (not uploaded) of the same image that's 50% bigger, if you want me to email it to you. --—rc(t) 00:36, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sir! That is indeed it. Thank you, and why email it? Why not just upload it? Is there a limit on image sizes? --Nerd42 01:30, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Er, because I wasn't thinking and assumed you were using it for a different purpose, like wallpapering your house. Here's the biggest puzzle potato ever, in case you need it: Image:TemplateMug3 - 2.png It's waaaay over Mediawiki's 100kb "recommended" size, though, so the wiki might explode if you use it. --—rc(t) 01:59, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

This is a great parody of the extra huge wikipedia logo intended for print publications to use, in case people wanted to print out an entire physical set of the Encyclopedia Wikipedia and put it on their shelves: [3] --Nerd42 02:48, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Deprecated templates

The first two are used directly on the main page, but the second two don't seem to be used much. Next time, click the link in the toolbox that says "what links here" --Nintendorulez 23:01, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Tried that, looks like Template:NewsContinents is live but UnNews Continents is just an unused redirect to NewsContinents, the others look pretty dead too (linked here, on the list of templates, from themselves or from some archived discussion page only. That's why I ask whether these are useless now... most often, this is the pattern seen when an item is discarded and replaced with something else. --Carlb 23:28, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Title assistance requested

I've created the Leningrad Cowboys article. I wanted to keep the article in its English name only (i.e., Leningrad Cowboys) but to have a bilingual (English / Russian) title Leningrad Cowboys / Ленинградские ковбои as the phantom title of the article at the top, instead of doing a redirect. I've sort of done it with wikimedia coding, as you can see by viewing of the article. However, there is some ghosting of the original title Leningrad Cowboys, because the alignment and height is a bit off. Any assistance to repair would be muchly appreciated by me. My hunch is that there is a standard system setting which trial and error with the various variables might not arrive at. Thanks. --Ogopogo 06:27, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Easier not to try to match the original text, I think, but just to append. I fiddled a bit. However, this sort of thing doesn't work in every browser, can fudge up in some. --Splaka 06:34, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that all browsers will have the full Unicode character set - some will display annoying ???? marks. I ran into that problem with the Canada (Nation) article, the snowman character is Unicode but some browsers weren't displaying it properly. --Carlb 09:14, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Splaka (and thanks too, Carl). The effect seems to vary from computer to computer in this case. I checked on two different computers (it's good on one; overlaps on another because the computer/browsers's natural font size is bigger). I'll keep to unilingual article title (or eventually redirect it to bilingual title). Thanks again. --Ogopogo 22:53, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Custom namespaces poll

Angela has said that as many custom namespaces as we need could be implemented just for Uncyclopedia. We could have Wilde:, UnNews:, Undictionary:, and the assortment of various languages as actual namespaces, the benefits of which are listed in the previous heading. I see nothing wrong with this, so I'm in favor. Thoughts? General Specific 00:14, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

In favour starting with any with 25+ entries (UnNews:, Wilde: or Quote:, Game: and maybe HowTo: and Undic), it'll get a big pile of l'il quotations off Special:Shortpages by getting them out of the main article space. Will what's there now need to be renamed before the prefixes are created? --Carlb 00:56, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

From what I hear it will happen automagically when the articles are edited. General Specific 00:57, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Dunno. I know we've had problems with interwiki links - name an article Namespace:Title, then later create Namespace: as an interwiki link and suddenly the old Namespace:Title as a formerly-plain article in the main namespace with a funny-looking name isn't accessible at all. We were using m: as a fake namespace for multilingual before it was interwikied to be meta: --Carlb 01:01, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. I see no reason, it will cause more problems than it will solve (may affect links to talkpages, existing implementations of {{NAMESPACE}} in templates, cause upset stomach and rashes, induce vomiting if symptoms occur). Another thing, *If* it is implemented for foreign languages, it should be done to all of them at once, but most are empty, so we'd have quite a few unused namespaces. The only faux namespace that might work out better as a real one, would be IMHO Wilde: and none others. --Splaka 01:36, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Um, the whole idea of using {{NAMESPACE}} in templates (such as the various stubs and VFD boxes) is that the "You can help Uncyclopedia by editing this..." link still be valid even if the article is not part of the main namespace. I wouldn't expect these to break. --Carlb 03:03, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It may break the way any templates are currently implementing them assuming non-real namespaces (I am just going by what Angela told me). However, other problems with templates will include things like Template:OWQ (Yes, that is easy to fix, but how many more problems might there be?). At the very least, any changes should be held off until we upgrade to 1.5 (sometime in November, it looks like). --Splaka 03:18, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Affected templates are {{OWQ}} and {{OWQL}} (nothing else references Wilde: directly) and the change there is to replace {{:Wilde:Title}} with {{Wilde:Title}}. Looks manageable. I'd be tempted not to create namespaces for every known language since, once they have enough articles, they are now being created as separate projects (désencyclopédie, uncyclopedia.de, nonsensepedia...) --Carlb 09:28, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a Quote namespace for all making up quotes pages. So Making up Oscar Wilde quotes would be renamed "Quote:Oscar Wilde" ... oh wait never mind that's a dumb idea. That was a really lame sounding title ... OK never mind --Nerd42 03:22, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Wilde: pseudonamespace doesn't contain the Making up Oscar Wilde quotes article itself (it remains in the main space). It's used to store all the individual one-line entries which each contain just one quote for inclusion elsewhere. For instance, if Wilde:NotNoticed were to contain "The only thing worse than being noticed is not being noticed...", inserting {{OWQ|NotNoticed}} would drop the quote into an article "The only thing worse than being noticed is not being noticed. - Oscar Wilde". There are hundreds of these one-line entries on Special:Shortpages and the only reason they're all stored as separate entries instead of inline with the main article text is to reuse the quotes on the Wilde:A-Z pages. --Carlb 08:52, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Mass move request

Can someone with the power to do so move every UnNews: article to just the article name? So if the title is "UnNews:Something happens," it would get move to "Something happens". The reason behind this insanity is that the talk pages for UnNews: namespace are completely botched due to UnNews not being a real namespace. Much appreciated. General Specific 13:23, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The talk pages may have a messed up location (Ie, being talk:unnews:article rather then unnews talk:article) but they still work, do they not? Is there anything besides this cosmetic problem? If there isnt, it makes sense to keep them with the unnews in front of them, as they are not to be confused with a normal article, the writing style is different and the goal is different. Rangeley 17:05, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the point of moving the pages. It's probably for the best just to leave them as "UnNews:News" instead of "News" or "News (UnNews)" (as you asked on my talk page). Less trouble all around. --—rc(t) 17:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it but it screws up and ends up doing "Talk:UnNews:News" for discussion pages and the page ends up not in the Talk: namespace. Aside from that, it's getting really annoying creating a million different workarounds for linking to "UnNews:" articles by actual name. General Specific 17:40, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you can't do this? I don't see a problem with doing the move except a little excess work that I'd be glad to clean up. Proper namespacing would help out tremendously with DynamicPageLists once Wikicities upgrades to 1.5. General Specific 18:17, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if it would help. Proper namespacing would be to use the custom namespace support described in m:Help:Namespace#Custom_namespaces and m:Help:Custom_namespaces. This would need to be done for us by Wikicities; it's not something to which our admins have access. Otherwise, I don't see how renaming UnNews:Title to just plain Title gets us any closer to being able to use these with DynamicPageList - the article would still be in the main namespace either way? --Carlb 18:30, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

DynamicPageList displays the full title of each article. So it would always list "UnNews:Article name" where it should be just "Article name" (even though the actual page is Article name. If you put it in the main namespace it gets rid of a lot of unneccessary complexity. General Specific 18:46, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just an observation, we have a lot of fake "namespaces". Wilde:, HowTo:, Undictionary: (reduced but still around), all the front page themed replacements, as well as all the language codes. The talkpages for all are in the same boat, but we survive. Fixing Unnews: would not even put a dent in the (insignificant) talk page problem. Making them real namespaces would be possible but probably not worth it. I vote Don't move --Splaka 22:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'd hesitate to consider a front-page theme a "namespace" as it's only one page;, and are not quite deprecated in the main Uncyclopedia by the creation of separate projects for these languages; Undictionary: still needs to drop to its final size (26 pages); most new pseudo-namespace entries are likely to be in Wilde:, UnNews: or HowTo: (at least if one were to ignore Zork/the game) --Carlb 22:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

They are all fake "namespaces" (if they are used for one page, 26, or 500) in that their talk pages are not "Namespace_talk:" but "Talk:Namespace:". If the original point of the moves GS wants is to eliminate such formats ("The reason behind this insanity is that the talk pages for UnNews: namespace are completely botched due to UnNews not being a real namespace.") then removing Unnews: prefixes will not help any of the others. Hence, it shouldn't be done. --Splaka 22:49, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

DynamicPageList extension

You would probably have to talk to Angela or JasonR about this because none of the Uncyclopedians have access to that server stuff. Try IRC or the centeral WikiCities wiki. --PaulgbTalk 00:14, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Videogame wars

Does anyone else think this is getting just a little out of hand? I suggest that we only do videogame war pages for really obscure wars, as that might actually be funny. General Specific 15:10, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Désencylopedie

Those wacky Québécois! We need to spork more articles and steal more ideas from Désencyclopedie. I haven't gone near French since learning it in school twenty years ago, but I know enough to steal their good jokes. I suggest others do the same - David Gerard 13:09, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just so long as they aren't plays on words - those usually don't translate well... --Carlb 18:15, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Imperial Colonisation

Wikipedia has a collaboration system where groups come together and work on articles together for a certain amount of days, to get it into shape. I and a few others have thought of implementing it here, where we can have a certain article each week for different catagories, such as Geography, History, etc. This would also be helpful to get people started, and in the end would create better quality articles. What does everyone think? Rangeley 05:05, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

We should have the various colonizations rotated at random on the main page, much like the feature image. Rangeley, you may want to change the dates when the collaborations begin. Give a week for nominations and votes, start the collaborations next week. --KPCUN 16:54, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was looking to get things started so that there would be things to work on for this week, but if it makes morse sense to wait I guess we can. Rangeley 18:45, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The colonization is a little bit more directed. While Uncyclopedia:Pee Review provides support for individual efforts, the colonization is a larger collaborative effort to fill out large areas of Uncyclopedia with content. --KPCUN 22:57, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I have added another week for the biography nominations. As for the others, they can be used as a 'test run' to see how colonizations will work out. So Afghanistan, Air Conditioning, Great Chicago Fire, and Lithium are this weeks chosen articles for colonization. Let the edits commence. Rangeley 07:00, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I demand Ballmer be brought back.

Just because it was overused doesn't mean it deserves deletion. I honestly thought it was funny. It may not have been very good on some articles, but there were a ton of really hilarious ones. --Nintendorulez 16:01, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ballmer is still here it's just that he has transcended template form. If there are one or two articles that would be especially Ballmerable, the quote can be always entered manually. --Spintherism 21:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And while we're at it, let's put more COWBELL in the articles so that our COW-ORKERS can get a laugh because GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT STEVE BALLMER. And I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR NEW BALLMER OVERLORDS since THEY BURNING YOUR DOG. Get the pattern here? Let's kill all humor by overusing it. --—rc(t) 22:36, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Dude, nothing's stopping you from just manually adding the code. The template was removed so that total retards are unable to put the Ballmer quote on every page everywhere. Smart people who know how to actually copy the code can still put it anywhere. Of course, it won't stay long with Flammable on the loose ... --Nerd42 01:05, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, that paragraph reads like the seed of an article - David Gerard 09:58, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It's not funny canned. I hope there's some thought put into it before adding a quote.--Sophia 20:53, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Insert Header Here, dude, Nope

I would suggest that the page on Time Cube be copied straight from Wikipedia [4] because it is a lot funnier than what is up now.--AsslessChaps McButtviolation

Xenu is one letter off Xena, Warrior Princess. Mormonism? Just drop the second 'm'. And then there's the Agnostic branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses... they knock on doors but aren't quite sure why. As for a Time Cube? Does anyone have a square alarm clock handy? --Carlb 16:37, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I started this article, but considering what it is I thought the community in general should contribute to it. I think it would be a funny way of listing a lot of in-jokes on Uncyclopedia. --neoEva88 19:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Looks like we're about to see a rise in EWI (editing while intoxicated). --Savethemooses 23:10, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wilde: namespace

Egads! If the Wilde: quotes are still using a variant of the old (and now deprecated, or maybe desecrated) Undictionary: structure, this would be a one-way ticket to the local detox. Unlike the old template:Wilde (which left the quote in the original main article's body text), template:OWQ makes every quotation a separate substub of an article with Wilde: in the title. The Uncyclopedia runneth over with those li'l one-line quotes. Mind you, a robot to pull the template:Wilde text out of articles and generate Wilde:A-Z would have to download every bloody article with that template in place, but a drink for every Wilde: quote in main article space? Time to buy stock in the local brewery! --Carlb 18:13, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think the Wilde: namespace (or rather, separate pages for each quote) is required to make the embedding using the OWL template work right. There should be standardization done, way too many wilde templates and thingles. Maybe putting the quotes in "Article_Name/Wilde" or such, with a template to show it on the page, and a template to show it in Wilde:A-Z. --Splaka 03:23, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm not doing vandalism here, and I'm not much of a Halloween fan ... but this does seem like a pretty good Halloween joke to me ... Don't read the article, it's cursed, and you might be banned from Uncyclopedia for reading it. In fact, I might be banned from Uncyclopedia for writing it ... but anyway, read Uncyclopedia:Curse and help me make this as scary as possible! (short of actually reading it) And don't delete it please I think somebody's going to come up with something clever to make it really scary for sure! :) Please don't link directly to the page, but to Uncyclopedia:Curse instead please. --Nerd42 17:39, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's nowhere near amusing, and it reminds me of chain letters, which I hate.--Sir FlammableKUN 18:30, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not very funny, but I stop short of disliking because I would like to promote the idea of an Uncyclopedia Halloween article. IMO, it would only be worth it if it's front-page worthy by Halloween though, which doesn't look very likely. --neoEva88 19:33, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Heres what I would do: Get rid of the article itself, to make it more mysterious. Make the article about the cursed article, but the cursed article doesn't exist. For example, move some of the stuff from the talk page over. You could take a screenshot of the article as it is now, and include it inline with the article. I think it would be more funny that way and it would fit better into uncyclopedia. Personally I like the idea, but the article itself doesn't look cursed to me. (Not that I have seen it. Stay away from my user page with that template) --PaulgbTalk 21:51, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Flammable you don't get it at all - it's supposed to remind you of chain letters because it's making fun of chain letters. And of the idiots who read them and send them on! That's the point! Duh! omg you're stupider than ... then ... than me! And that's a good idea paulgb ... except don't delete the page ... that would stop anything more from being added to the legend ... --Nerd42 22:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I see myself as been blessed, for even in great misfortune good may come, as new growth follows a forest fire -- Mhaille 01:02, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I really think if the actual page was gone, then nobody would be getting cursed, thus the danger's gone, thus the mystery's gone, don't you think? --Nerd42 02:55, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uh... I hate to say it, but the humor is sort of lost without a cuebat and the cursed article being that... "Oh my god, you're cursed" is... rather boring over the internet. --Chronarion 06:06, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is a cuebat? Google has no definitions for it. Hey wait, I know I'll link it. Cuebat.--Nerd42 13:25, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Those stupid Cuebats. Lost us the World Series. Some background: the Houston Astros invented a really cool way to blow off steam after tough games, by combining Pool (I almost typed "poop", hehe) and Baseball into "BasePool". It's really pretty much the same as regular Pool, except with a baseball instead of a cueball, and a modified baseball bat instead of a cuestick. You see, the cork inside the bat was causing the cuebaseball to shoot off the table, so they used "regulation" (wink wink) bats for their BasePool games. Well, after Katrina and Rita hit, all their regular ballboys were in shelters, so the team hired some beachcombers who got evacuated from Galveston, and sure enough, the Bozos got the bats mixed up. The Astros took the field with uncorked bats, and the result was a Houston disaster the likes of which hadn't been seen since Hurricane Enron.

Judging from this conversation, there are a good number of people who are unhappy with Undictionary. Therefore I propose this plan to cut down Undictionary to only the alphabet pages, which will both reduce the ridiculous number of (mostly lame, in my opinion) individual-paged Undic entries and make the Undictionary easier to handle in the future.

Copy the contents of the existing Undic entry - we will call it Undictionary:Title - to its corresponding alphabet page (Undictionary:T in this case), replacing the {{def|Title}} template that the alphabet pages currently use.

Delete pages that redirect to Undictionary:Title, except for (if it exists) the redirect from [[Title]], which would be changed to redirect to Undictionary:T#Title.

Delete direct links to Undictionary:Title, OR simply change them to point to [[Title]].

Delete Undictionary:Title itself.

Optional: delete entries on the alphabet pages that aren't dictionary-ish. (But we can decide on this later.)

It will be hard and it will not be fun. But I, for one, am willing to start this process in order to reduce Undic to a reasonable, possibly even humorous section of the site.

For. Also, can we fix the Template:Undictionary to point to the correct place, and insert it into a few pre-existing Title pages that match? --Splaka 06:07, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

{{Undictionary}} is currently only used twice and I've changed both instances to the new version: {{Undictionary|A}} through {{Undictionary|Z}} depending which of the 26 pages is to be pointed to. --Carlb 19:25, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not an admin, so I can't really help out, apart from posting endless lists of annoying/unfunny undictionary articles to QVFD, but I agree. From what I've seen of undictionary, it just seems to be any short article, without taking the relative merits of said articles into consideration. At least there isn't any 1337 ones that don't have a reason for being that way... --Malleus 11:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not convinced - my vote's up for grabs (for what it's worth) Problem: but then every time some n00b writes a clever (but not funny) shortie it'll have to be deleted, not moved. Mere mortals cannot do this ... that takes admin privilages. So this basically looks like it's gonna be more work for admins ... forever am I correct? --Nerd42 12:47, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

No, the opposite is true. Mere mortals have never done any significant MTU work and never will. Deleting is much easier. --Spintherism 14:24, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

well ... they've tagged articles to be moved ... but yeah I C your point ... no wait a second ... are you saying that "all new pages that are too short for uncyclopedia will be deleted instead of moved to unDictionary and existing ones will be merged into 26 pages?" --Nerd42 14:48, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The content of new short pages can still be moved to Undictionary and the parent page deleted (or left with a redirect, per #2). This will actually make it easier for people to create new entries for Undictionary (once they're aware of the change), as well as easier for admins to maintain the Undic entries. No messy movages and an overall less cluttered site. It's a Good Thing. --—rc(t) 15:56, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For To many random hits go to undic, and too much crap is moved to undic instead of deleted. --Sarducci 17:16, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As a slight aside, I think undictionary should be for word definitions, not one/two sentence articles. Things that aren't definitions should be deleted as the Undictionary is collated.--Sarducci 18:28, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Other people have said the same thing. I'm neutral on the issue - as long as Undictionary is confined to just a few pages, I'm happy. It looks like Carlb has already copied the contents of the Undic pages to their respective alphabet pages, so if you want to start a vote about whether to keep non-dictionaryish entries, go ahead. I'll get started on the rest of the maintenance later today if I have time. --—rc(t) 18:37, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For x4 This issue is in the forefront. --Savethemooses 17:47, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Comment For (2) and (4) above, looks like the redirect at [[Title]] will need to be clobbered/overwritten with [[Undictionary:Title]], which will then be edited to #REDIRECT [[Undictionary:T#Title]]. Effectively, undo the move that was made when these were originally MTU'ed and then redirect 'em to one of the 26 Undictionary:A-Z pages. That way, edit history is preserved for what little it's worth. I shall have to see if I have a way of automating this as there are likely six hundred or so of the bloody things, all useless... --Carlb 19:25, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This prevents double redirects, and allows people to linkify any word in the undictionary and not get a red link. Also, later, people can expand Title to a full article and also add the template. With this system, the Undictionary:Title redirects and entries need never exist again. I think? It seems simpler anyways! --Splaka 20:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Understood. I shall be moving the [[Undictionary:Title]] entries back to just plain [[Title]] once the redirects are done. That process needs to be complete before I can huff the double-redirects. --Carlb 21:29, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I say 8, because I'm 4 it twice over. After my abortive attempt to slog through the MTU pages (just 700? yeah, I'll do it over lunch. help! drowning! AAAAAAAAA!), I'm all for massive huffage. "All new pages that are too short for uncyclopedia will be deleted" sounds harsh, but that's the way I like my coffee*. * Disclaimer: I don't drink coffee. -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 15:53, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think perhaps some people have a different purpose in mind than others. Some simply want Uncyclopedia to be a place to have fun reading/writing funny articles, and some people seem to think that Uncyclopedia is supposed to be funny as the primary objective, whether people are having fun or not. Though my two (count 'em two) undictionary contributions will no doubt be the first to go (and I don't care because they're stupid anyway) I really think this site is beginning to reach a crossroads ... and it's not as fun anymore ... you know? The whole point of being funny is, or ought to be so people have fun. --Nerd42 16:11, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is supposed to be funny. It is both possible and plausible to have fun and write articles at the same time. This does not necessarily mean you can pound out articles like crazy. See ipod nano 200gb for example. I write an article like what, once every three months? Gist of it is, if you can't be funny, I really am not forcing you to stay around and write stuff. The sad reality is that it's less fun to read if half the pages are complete shit. Honestly, it's supposed to be more fun to READ than to WRITE, unless you are rather good, or rather masochistic.--Chronarion 17:51, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's something to be said for having fun writing. Fortunately, for those for whom the joy of writing doesn't quite match the joy of reading, there are several supportgroups online. Meanwhile, I suspect there's a Wikipedia Village Pump archive out there somewhere, in which somebody says "it's not as fun anymore..." -- SirBobBobBob!S? [rox!|sux!] 19:02, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Fun doesnt mean writing short, badly written things. And reading these short, badly written things generally isnt fun either. Writing good articles, and reading good articles is what makes this place great, and unique. This is hardly a crossroads, to delete bad articles or entries is keeping up with the tradition, and something that happens every day. And something that should be continued.Rangeley 19:11, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The thing some writers here fail to realize is that most websites have something like 10,000 reads to every write. I'm not kidding. Even wiki pages are generally read more than they're updated. Therefore, fun in writing is not our target, fun in reading, which most people do, is our target. If it isn't funny to read, it should be burned with great prejudice. Nothing personal, but very few people find modifying stupid articles the height of entertainment. Nerd42, if you find editing crap articles entertaining, please, by all means, DON'T WRITE A NEW ARTICLE EVER AGAIN, just go through the two-point-five metric tons of crap we already have, and make it funny. Seriously, you'd be doing the site a favor. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 15:35, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Astrokey44 took it upon himself to merge United States of America into United States of Armenia. If this merge is appropriate, then at the very least, this article needs some attention; it has physically overlapping templates, among other problems. Better yet, I'd suggest that the two articles be unmerged; but maybe the decision to merge has already had consensus. --Ogopogo 04:01, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just merged ones which had merge templates on them. It says on wikipedia that you can do as they put it "cut, paste and run" for merges. But I totally agree with moving the article to the correct name, I was just following what the template said to do. Astrokey44 07:42, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any consensus. I noticed he was merging some articles but haven't had time to check up on him. Proper merges are badly needed on many articles here, see the Jesii discussion below. (Just a comment) --Splaka 04:06, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Some admins better check the quality of this guy's merges and undo one's he screwed up, like this one, or ones he didn't move contants, like mj below. Sarducci 12:24, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So... I decided to take care of this, and made United States A disambiguation page. When trying to un-merge united states of America with US of Armenia, I found no evidence in the history of an article being in the United states of America that was every anything but a redirect. am i missing something? --Sarducci 20:56, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are. When it was moved to United States of Armenia, so was its history. The redirect was a page created, when it moved, thus creating a new history. Rangeley 23:06, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I was gonna say, the United States of Armenia article seems to be a misplaced Uncyclopedia article on the United States of America. Since the location provides no added humor to the article, I propose we just move it back. --neoEva88 23:10, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

But misnaming it Armenia creates hours of fun! Yea, I completely agree about the move back to the correct place. Rangeley 23:15, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't moved the redirect, just moving United States of Armenia to United States of America might have worked. MediaWiki will let you move an article over top of a redirect, provided the destination is just one simple redirect with no article history and that the move you're making just undoes the previous move. And besides, it shouldn't have been moved to Armenia in the first place but to Albania, the capital of New York State --Carlb 17:09, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Article moved back to America. I'm not even going to try to clean it up, though. --Algorithm 08:59, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

As well, Astrokey44 merged the Rev. Michael Jackson article into the Michael Jackson article, without transfering the Rev. Michael Jackson contents into the surviving article. I took the liberty of doing it. If a merger is to be done, it should be right, eh? --Ogopogo 04:01, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You might bring this up in the Village Dump. But, I for one am annoyed by people adding nonexistant Jesii to the list! A bit anyway. --Splaka 22:16, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Having set up the Jesii template, I am of two minds on this:

Firstmost, I think that people seem to be confused as to what "Major" and "Minor" mean. I meant the "Major Jesii" to be ones with a sold two+ pages of information. Not 2 paragraphs.

Secondmost, a number of them are visually odiferous, and should be deleted post-haste.

Thirdleast, putting non-existant Jesii on that template should be a bannable offence. Splaka is banning anyone else who adds a red link to it, since I'm up to my eyeballs in work.

Forthwidth, we should delte/merge a bunch of the Jesii. While this is covered in Secondmost, above, I believe in this tenant strongly enough that it bears repeating. And none of that pussy resurrection shit this time, either.

Fifthmost, we should include all existing Jesii on this template. If only because it so offends the fundamentalists. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 01:33, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yea, for he hath spoken with the Lord, and decreed that we be less fruitful and not multiply so much! But anyhow, how about a sub-list of 'Things named "Jesus" that aren't divine' at the bottom? And then the mergers... --Splaka 01:39, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It was the red link to Zombie Jesus that inspired me to start writing crap. I mean, how could there have been no Zombie Jesus? It was too big an oversite. Some do seem redundant, like Lizard Jesus and Raptor Jesus, for ex. --Sarducci 02:09, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It took us about half the time to get from 400k to 500k as it took to get from 300k to 400k, thanks in no small part to Slashdot. The Slashdottings were also probably one of the biggest reasons the other stats look rather anemic - even though we got something like 30k front-page hits the first time /. gave us a link, hardly any edits came from that (at least immediately) because the danged site was down during the deluge.

I am pleased to see a significant increase in "Pants" usernames this time around. Note also that the figure does not include the users "Pantera" and "Panther." --—rc(t) 03:19, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And of course we've deleted a load of pages (close to 2000, I believe) in the past week as well. --—rc(t) 03:25, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Dunno if there were thousands of deletions, but certainly hundreds have been removed in the last half-week or so: largely pointless one-liners. Redirecting all of the (hundreds of) individual Undictionary entries to twenty-six main ick!tionary pages has put a dent in this mess too. We're down to 15140 articles today, from the 15834 listed for the 23rd. The Undictionary mess was huffed and burninated on the 26th, leaving just a few embers and ashes which still need to be swept away. We still have many small Uncyclopedia fragments because Wilde: is still on the old Undictionary: structure or a variant thereof, Zork/The game also generate a mass of short substubs by nature. I'd estimate easily 2000 "articles" of 300 bytes or less remain? --Carlb 16:28, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Between 08:26, 19 Oct 2005 (PDT) and 14:37, 27 Oct 2005 (PDT) (From Chron's first burn-week delete to me removing the template 8+ days later) there were 3179 deletes. About a thousand of those were bits of the undictionary. There have been about a thousand more since then. Burn on! --Splaka 05:22, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Giving up an article for adoption

My brain gave birth to the article Romance language the other night. I am offering this article for adoption, as I am unable to care for it. The prospective parent(s) should know Portuguese, French, Spanish, Italian, or Romanian and should be able to add surreal dialogue in one of these languages to the article. An ability to care for articles with linguistic technical needs is a plus. Please care for this article. --KPCUN 03:14, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this article? IMHO it's my best article so far (which says a lot about the quality of my articles, or more accurately lack thereof). Anyone think that with some polishing and extra content it would deserve a nomination? General Specific 23:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a new article.

It is called iPod yocto. It's my first one in a while. Please view it, and leave some feedback here and/or on teh talk page. Thanks! --Savethemooses 22:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles are created each week on uncyclopedia. If you want to highlight yours, perhaps edit the Recent Articles page to add a link to your article? --Ogopogo 00:21, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I did do that as well already. There may be hundreds of new articles every week, but there are only a few great ones per month (more specifically, mine). By the way, you've only been here since what, August? Go fetch me the sports page and a cup 'o' joe, n00b. --Savethemooses 00:29, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the Uncyclopedia, Savethemooses. Please check out the Beginner's Guide before making your first edit. You can also check out Help:Contents if you have never edited a wiki before. -- hehehe, welcome back Savethemooses. You should join us in #uncyclopedia --PaulgbTalk 21:29, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

VETO - I do have this power, right? The current one is a direct parody of Wikipedia. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 19:26, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Double Veto! I think I should eat you. This would make life better. Whaddya think? --PantsMacKenzie 19:36, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I veto Pants' veto, lest it inadvertently veto Dawg's veto thereby vetoing the the entire veto process outright, and leaving us all cold and vetoless in the dark of the night, which simply wouldn't do at all. --Spintherism 19:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm not keen about encouraging articles to be "screwed up". We already have enough juveniles and vandals screwing up existing articles with cruft or starting new cruft articles. "Edit" is a good term and should remain, as it suggests a certain amount of thought going into the edit.--Ogopogo 20:18, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, the more people screw up Uncyclopedia, the more we get to use our bansticks. So I'm split on my vote. While I like banning people, I don't like fixing the stuff they broke. I guess I vote for chocolate cookies. And tradition. And I vote to overturn an even number of vetos. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 20:25, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Against - If we are going to change the subtitle (what is it really called?), we should go for something altogether new. Even a contest or something. We rotate everything else on the Main Page regularly, why not the subtitle? The one thats there now works because it is a direct parody of Wikipedia. The screw-up headline works as a parody as well, but it loses some of its funny points (IMO) because its true. --PaulgbTalk 20:55, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Was I supposed to get approval/permission for doing this? Anyway, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Seems to me if Wikipedia is going through all this trouble to ignore us, the least we can do is ignore them back! Nerd42 18:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I love it! Now, we need more cowbell (obvious links to Wikipedia) and to strive to put this on EVERY SHIT PAGE ON THE SITE. Make them deal with the morons instead of us. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 19:26, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I thought the point of the site was to parody wikipedia ... so whats ur problem? maybe i'm not getting something here. Delete it if you like Nerd42 20:10, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

do you mean you actually like the idea? I thought you were just being sarcastic. Hmm ... I need to stay sharper ... alot of these jokes are starting to whiz past my head like the pages being deleted this week --Nerd42 02:28, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

ED's article about Uncyclopedia

Here's an excerpt:

Example of arena-silencing anti-ror

2005 - Steve Ballmer discovers a new element, Ballmerium, which can transmit through the Internets and kill people distantly. Good luck for Ballmer, bad luck for everyone at his hitlist. Death by a flying chair is painful.

The Opposite of Image Request

I've had some awesome images on my computer for quite some time but I can't seem to find a good page to put them in. What if we had a page that was like the opposite of image requests, it could be something like, "images that need a home". I think it's a good idea. If we already have such a page just provide a link and I'll apologize for being such a moron. ~ Jared ~ 14:43, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Correct, but I'd say this page does the job better. (There was a link to it on the page you linked to.) neoEva88 19:10, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This page is a continuation as the first one's already rather full. --Carlb 23:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How the hell do I add images?

I'm trying to add a image, but what the hell does the system mean with "image name on server"? What server? Can I add a image from a internet page? Does it have to come from my PC? Is it stored somewhere in uncyclopedia after that?

You have to create a username (click 'create user' at the top). When you do, you'll have a link in your tool box called "Upload file". This ability is usually restrited to users with profiles on all Wikis. --Splaka 11:38, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

08:49 Flammable (Talk) (blocked "User:Toytoy" with an expiry time of 5 minutes: Yay!)

08:55 Dawg (Talk) (blocked "User:Toytoy" with an expiry time of 300 seconds: RAPIST!)

08:56 Flammable (Talk) (blocked "User:Toytoy" with an expiry time of 5 minutes: Oop!)

Longer! For life. Please! Por favor! Danke! I know you can do it. I will not come back and I will not argue. Trust me this is for real. Ban me. Please. Do me a favor. Please. I am sincere. Yo soy un hombre sincero. -- Toytoy 09:01, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I disapprove of the handling of this incident. I do not see why you messed with toytoy's userpage?--Chronarion 18:45, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I was joking on the template adds (Fixed and "air freshener".) Seeing as he was a member for a while, I decided to add a template to his atrocity of a user page. (Let me spam my otherwise worthless radnomized template on my page to relieve the tnesion that I have about not being able to spam it elsewhere). I also got around to deleting several weak, sparsely connected, articles I found to be worthless. Apparently, he took grave offense to this, opting to blank my page (and dawg's page as well for his contribution to the "air freshener" template). Now, if he can't take a joke tempalte or two on his user page (or, more reasonably, remove it and politely ask for it not to happen again, at the very least), that's his problem. Blanking admin pages in response (note:poor, juvenile judgment on HIS part) makes it our problem. By virtue of the fact that he could not be remotely mature about it (Retributive blanking, not giving reasons to revert/restore his work and taking illegal actions, calling for a self ban and harassing us in the IRC channel) I don't think he needs to be a contributing member. Furthermore, as it stands, I have no remorse, seeing as his edits have been varible in quality. His photoshopping was interesting; but for the most part, his content adds, page originals, and other contributions could only be interpreted as assinine (by virtue of its reliance on bias/viewpoint) and cliche (by virtue of its reliance on nonsense, nonsequitur, and an overall lack of wit and finesse). Splaka has had to admonish him on page moves and redirects, and his wholesale movement of "Iraq" (an article about a nation) to "iRaq" was done without admin okay, AFAIK, or any real, logical rationale. At some point, _Dawg and I were being funny about bans, as we were rapidly reaching "stupid o'clock." He took it badly, and acted immaturely. We decided to run with it.--Sir FlammableKUN 19:58, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The contributions to his all-template user page were a group efforts, after he egged the admins on, probably not realizing that it was late and we were tired from chasing vandals all day. I helped because my sarcasm gland is overdeveloped and I was about 1% in reality at the time. From my perspective, the majority of his "contributions" fell into the following categories: stupid political statements, template abuse akin to Ballmer/Kayne Quote Spam, and totally random template abuse. I liked his photoshops (the one was *not* home page material, sadly, unlike many of his others that would have had a chance)...

What I can't figure out is why he thought we wanted to ban him - he pokes at everyone, fools with numerous pages, moves things willy-nilly, and creates tons of redirects - yet nobody wanted to ban him. The suprising thing was that he couldn't take the same jokes he used on other pages when they were directed at his user page (easily fixed, I might add). Nobody wanted to ban him, even when he asked us to do so (repeatedly), then he vandalized to give us a reason. We thought the request was funny, so we made a few joking bans. Then he vandalized some more and begged for permanent banishment, but we liked him enough to go on for almost an hour making silly bans... *shrug* »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 21:14, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

4004 BC

It is known as a fact that the world was created on TODAY, 4004 BC. Uncyclopedia seems to forget it. What a shame! -- Toytoy 03:36, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Where are we now?

During the few hours uncyclopedia was down today (for me, atleast) I went searching around to see if any site said why. This is when I stumbled upon this site. Its basically an essay on Uncylopedia, written in March, that discusses where things might head. I must say that I think things are heading towards being more funny, and organised, rather then total chaos. It was also noted in the essay that Uncyclopedia had an 'American College Liberal slant.' I guess all of this is something to think about. So how would you guys say things have changed since March? Rangeley 02:40, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It used to have an American college stoner liberal slant, then the British discovered it and started using humour and not just humor and since then everything's sucked but in a much more literary way. HTH! - David Gerard 14:28, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The American college liberal slant was suggested by me in a March blog entry due to the contrast between the pages on George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and also the Daily-Show-esque feel to much of the humour on this site. Nevertheless, Uncyclopedia has been taken over by the British and Romanians ever since. --stillwaters/Talk 17:23, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The slant may also be an effect of the administration. It appears that every administrator is either college-educated, a college student, or in a magnet high school (might as well be a junior college) and will almost certainly go to college. Probably an effect of immersion and force-fed propaganda (as I recall), which hopefully adds frustration-induced academic-style parody of current events, science, mathematics, history, and literature. For instance, when one of the admins saw Rasputin, they took pity on it, commenting that the real story was funnier than the one in the article...

We're not the only ones - Wikipedia's official "neutral" stance is also left-leaning, in my humble opinion. One of their recent Featured Articles was a clear example of their left slant. It was based on current events and the leftist belief that the choices and mentalities of average people are wrong and past systems that worked but are no longer PC or in vogue are worthless and worthy of ridicule.

Around here I'm certainly annoyed by the left/right arguments (childish), the racial/theological hatred (childish), scientific bigotry, and other senseless stupidity (who let these people on the internet?!). Thanks to the handy VFD, QVFD, and my newly-acquired [huff] button, the painfully childish ones usually go to the bit bucket.

The slant against Bush is merely a function of current events - currently elected officials, fresh in the eye of the media (which is very clearly leftist and affects the mentalities of normal people), will be of more interest than past elected officials. This means more anti-Bush rhetoric. Besides, he and his appointees are very easy to parody, often all you need to do is take their statements out of context (the media is also known for doing this, except in the interest of furthering their collective agenda, just look at Fox News, CNN, NY Times, or any other major news source for examples (BBC is the rare exception - they're as close to neutral as a major news organization can get, IMHO)).

Personally, my writing is a cross between a parody of American encyclopedia entries (of which I have read literally thousands), British humour/spelling, Commonwealth terminology (Canadian/Australian), serious ideas, and the English I took in college. It would be no surprise to me if they reflect these things.

I apologize for my extended commentary on the subject - my internet connection went down and I had plenty of time to write it while waiting for it to return. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 00:44, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Give it up for admins in magnet schools! heh my school is a public school in a northern city so most people are left or neutral, with a few people to the right. However people I know who have backed Bush for years are even started to question him. Seriously, everything and I mean everything is falling apart for Bush right now. One of my friends is extremely right and HE's saying Bush is a moron. I thought it would never happen O_O so calling Bush an idiot these days isnt a political statement its just an obvious one :P But yeah, by default Uncyclopedia is left. This isnt the kind of thing I could see a right politician laughing about :P actually I cant really picture any politician laughing in the first place but w/e (uncyclopedia.left++;) --Maj Sir InsertwackynamehereCUNVFHVFPBur.CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 22:21, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Id Agree about the liberal slant. Well, let me put it this way atleast, the articles you would expect to have a liberal slant do, the articles that youd expect to have a conservative slant dont. Most articles about liberal people are plain idiotic, rather then satirical, while most articles on conservatives are satirical. Ive been working bit by bit to change this, but Ive actually had quite a bit going on lately so my mind has been quite split up.

But yea, people are questioning Bush, and things are going bad for him lately. A combination of many factors really. Nothing is going on that would make me abandon my ideals and change to a liberal, though the Republican Party does seem to be having some management issues. But suprisingly (or not), people trust/like the democrats even less. So I dont really see this translating into anything, people seem to be fed up overall with politics and politicans, and I wouldnt blame them. Partisanship is at its highest out of any non election year that I can remember, and people are sick and tired of it. Rangeley 03:08, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, Rangeley. I don't want to admit what I did last cycle... I find both sides lacking (only slightly less on the right side, but that's just because they're closer to center than the left) and I always vote libertarian (my personal political stance is impossible to define - I'm a cross between a social libertarian and an anarcho-communist, but I strive to be neutral around here) . »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 06:42, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How do I create a new article?

You put your article in brackets like this: [[ArticleName]] and click on the link. Or you replace the words Uncyclopedia:Village_Dump in your address bar above with your page name, and go there. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 22:31, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You can also just type it in the search bar. If it doesn't exist, then you'll be given a link to create a page with the same title as whatever you typed in (case sensitive). This'll also help to avoid making pages that already exist in a similar form.--Jordanus 02:32, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

All those lonely images, where do they come from?

This time, unless someone can come up with an automated way of doing it, I shall not be alerting the original uploaders of their media's peril, since there is a metric tonne of puppy-flesh to wade through.

I'd bet some of them came from here. It seems like their entire village has recently been burned. Put them out of our misery with vigor. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 19:20, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Can I burninate all of them? Because I'm going to burninate all of them. Look out. --Savethemooses 20:06, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's my criteria for burninating images:
1. User has been idle for about a month or more.
2. Image is (obviously) unused and is crappy
3. Any combination of the two.
--Savethemooses 20:22, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It is kinda spooky that images can't be undeleted. Someone might wanna back up the uncyc image database (this thing? seems to be). Also: be sure to check for Template:Notorphan --Splaka 20:35, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The database dump does not provide a backup of the images, only of the text. To save images, either right-click each one and save them manually or use pywikibot? --Carlb 14:26, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not an image hosting site. Those who rely on us for an external link should probably consider going to putfile or photobucket or something. --Savethemooses 20:42, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Notorphan doesn't indicate external linkitude. There are circumstances in which images will appear orphaned even though they are not. 1) Image is only in a <choose> randomizer 2) Image is only linked via text link [[:Image:Whatever.jpg]] 3) Image is only "externally" linked inside uncyclopedia (though this isn't used much, is more of a hack to turn images into links to a page other than the image description page). Please don't delete any such (though they should be tagged with Notorphan) --Splaka 21:14, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Idle Admins

Ok, I got bored and made a graph of all the admins, when they were +sysopped, and when they last edited (sorted by last edit). The # symbol indicates timeperiod between their +s and their last edit. Note that ERTW has made no edits since +s. Also note for those +s directly to the config are assumed to be from January (which they are not). --Splaka 11:27, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A question on deletion

I was wondering, is there a limit to the number of things that we should submit to the VFD page, or a limit we should stick to if we don't want everyone to hate us? Reason is, I've been coming across articles that I would've submitted all day, but I've been holding off putting them there in case an Admin or somesuch rants at me for being to quick to want to delete things... --Malleus 06:41, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I always appreciate help - six/eight eyes are better than my four. If we say no, it's generally consensus (seriously) because it was something I put to a vote with the other admins on duty at the time. The one was cleaned up and not deleted because another admin saw promise in it. The others went directly to the great bit bucket after a quick glance. Any completely mindless crap with no redeeming quality whatsoever should go in QuickVFD, and at least 9 out of 10 times it'll be immediately huffed without question. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 07:50, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, sounds like fun! *Insert evil laughter* Wow, there is an awful lot of these newly submitted pages that I'm just dying to put on QVFD. --Malleus 11:09, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in deleting today. I've been busy working on top-secret projects, speculating on the end of the internet, and generally doing other stuff. I have huffed most of what you've placed on QVFD and VFD, but as I said on User_talk:Malleus, certain ones keep growing back. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 11:56, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Top secret projects and the end of the internet? Sounds ominous. A few more things, is there always this much stuff that deserves to be insto-huffed, and what exactly causes the articles to regrow? Do the authors just re-post 'em, or do they rig something up to put them back whenever they get deleted? --Malleus 14:18, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

We're known for top-secret projects. The apocalypse almost happened Thursday night/Friday morning (mattering on your coast) when Level 3 dropped off the internet.

To my knowledge they repost them. The rate at which they are reposted is a function of how often someone manually attempts to post them. To my knowledge there is no automated process for blanking and creation of deleted wiki articles. There is usually a lot of stuff that needs to be insto-huffed, but our strong belief in pseudo-democracy requires that we vote on most things and often consult others on QVFD entries. At the moment, as we are under martial law, we're allowed to insto-huff pretty much anything we deem truly QVFD-worthy. VFD only takes 2-3 votes, mattering on our moods, and anything I feel needs more votes goes before a tribunal comprised of admins immediately before the execution. They seldom survive.

Hmm, it might be better to put in a warning message like "This tag has been depreciated, use MTUsign instead? Or, maybe there is some clever way using subst and date variables to make it timestamp? I do support un-useage of MTU though. --Splaka 19:20, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I just tried that too (and a bunch of other tricks last night, bah). No joy. It might not be possible. BTW: That is a clever trick, letting you insert raw code by making it your sig ^_^. --Splaka 19:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC) PS: note to self (or elvis) m:Help:Template#Noinclude_and_includeonly might work. But I asked on #wikipedia, and what we want is kind of impossible. You can't insert code into an article without subst: or ~~~~~ being part of the text.

Template:MFU

Am wondering if the MFU template (move from undic) is also deprecated and useless? Presumably this was intended to be placed on individual Undictionary:Title entries, but under the current structure the only way to use this template is to plop it as a big, ugly box into the middle of one of the main Undictionary:A-Z pages... not necessarily desirable. Any way to salvage this template? or should those wanting to move stuff out of Undic just do so and forget the template entirely? --Carlb 18:38, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rating System

I am considering writing a rating system for MediaWiki in order to make Uncyc easier to browse. Is this a good idea? Such a system would be implemented like bash.org, where articles start at zero, and get scored by anonymous and logged in users with a single + or - point. --Chronarion 07:09, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. It depends on how it's implemented. As in, if it's not prominently displayed on the article, I'd be ok with it. And if the voting system doesn't detract from the article as well. --PantsMacKenzie 07:14, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Pants. We could just try it out and get rid of it if it's too much of a distraction. --—rc(t) 07:17, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea on the surface, but I could also see some opportunity for foul play. If it required registration it might be more effective. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 07:22, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I actually would not mind if it was prominently displayed? I fail to see why it would be bad to be openly scored. As for registration, I think that it should be 1 vote per ip per article. Registration doesn't make sense because I want ALOT of votes as opposed to a few specific ones. --Chronarion 15:22, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A lot of votes is one thing, but I have the feeling that some Romanian with a proxy or a dynamic IP would give 1000 upvotes to all the Romania related articles and 1000 downvotes to all the Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia related articles. If there's some way of dealing with that type of thing, then I fully approve of this idea. --EvilZak 17:02, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If the article itself can stay alive, I think the score should be just fine. --Chronarion 05:48, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

My bet is that with such a rating system, the most highly rated articles will be thinly disguised racist articles, random-humour articles, and GamesFAQ-related articles. Just a hunch, though. --Ogopogo 07:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Special:Validate is exactly what you want and it's already in MediaWiki. See Wikipedia:m:Article validation feature. I've been pushing and pushing and pushing for this to be switched on for Wikipedia for a while now. However, Brion Vibber (the lead on MediaWiki) fears it completely crippling the database. You could ask Wikia for an opinion ... I think it'd fit in perfectly with what Wikia does - David Gerard 11:40, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I read the page and have no idea what that does. --Chronarion 15:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Further, ratings would be one score per article, not per revision. An admin can reset points if they feel a latest revision was strong enough to merit a full change. If this still seems to be a workable idea, I can start writing code, at first a monobook.js extension, and later MediaWiki after I fill out the implementation. --Chronarion 15:22, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It has a potential to work, there is no doubt in that. A rating system could motivate better writing and also let people know where to look for the best quality. It could ofcourse be abused, and if this is the case, and the system just doesnt work, I do hope it would be removed. But this is getting ahead of ourselves. I think its worth a try, but a non commital try where if it fails we can get rid of it. Rangeley 21:11, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. I've wanted some sort of rating system for years. Or, at lest since March. But I've been quiet about it, just mindin' my own... --Savethemooses 21:37, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Seems to work well for Yahoo message boards and Linkfilter.net. Personally I don't read messages with low ratings on Yahoo or poorly rated articles on Linkfilter. -anon

Mainly the problem is that we have alot of crap. Sorting the gems out is really hard unless we have some kind of scoring system. --Chronarion 00:38, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think a rating system would be preatty nice. Jack Cain 08:10, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Forest Fire Week

This week is national forest fire week! Admins can hit 'random page' and burn it if it REALLY sucks, bypassing VFD. The criterea for QVFD is hereby halved! There's so much crap, it's burn time! --Chronarion 05:27, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Burn baby... *puts up his MTU tag for a bit* --Splaka 05:31, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC) PS: Randompage seems weighted to newer pages, so a lot of the newer pages will fall first, I think.

If anyone would like to use my autowant javascript (autoselects the confirm button on delete pages, changes the text, and sets the focus on the text so you can just hit enter, or type a different reason and hit enter). Put this code in your User:You/monobook.js (or whatever theme you are using).

Damn the Special:Log/delete is filling up fast. But so is Special:Newpages. I've put a faux template on the front page (as you might notice) with custom animated gifs... if there are any objections you can beat me with a feather duster. Cheers. --Splaka 11:40, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hot Damn, that looks like fun! Can I have a flamethrower? =P Seriously, though, good work, guys. This has needed to be done for some time! All hail Forest Fire Week! --RadicalX 13:55, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The great burnination is upon us. May those who edit out the great burnination be stricken with erectile dysfunction. --Nytrospawn 16:34, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I Agree with this sentiment, as this means that i can act as I normally do, without regard for humanity.--Sir FlammableKUN 17:51, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I hardily endorse this event or product. Have fun on your hunt. Be sure to bring back a feast.--Sir AlexMWKUNPSFIYC 19:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey, any Admin or aspiring burninators who want to swig mead and reminisce between battles, come to the green pavilion at the top of the fourth hill north from the battlefield. Click here and choose #uncyclopedia (or come on with an IRC client: irc.freenode.net in #uncyclopedia chan) --Splaka 22:09, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Damn I have Thursday and Friday off. What amazing timing. Hell, I started randombly burning crap this earlier this week, without even knowing this was coming up. But then I got feeling a teensy bit guilty and let some pages off the hook. Horray for browser history!!! --SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 14:06, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Muhahahaha!!!! The orphans are mine. I know it's a little outside the Randompage method, but hell, they would have come up anyway... --SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 15:16, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

More Complaining About Undictionary

I was just poking around in the MTU category (and by poking around, I mean deleting things), when God spoke to me from a burning template. He told me to free the bytes from bondage and lead them to some promise land where they might be forced no longer to present irredeemably uninspired one-liners in the heat of the sun and dark of the night, while their children starve and such. So I say to myself, I say "Cap'n, we're no God-lackey, but He's got a point." And then I say "That he does, for the majority of things in undictionary really aren't proper dictionary entries at all! In fact, most of them are just short uncyclopedia entries that should be judged by their merit in that context, and not given special treatment, by which they're left rotting and ignored in the horrible caverns of uncyclopedic bureaucracy." So I say to myself, "Ok, Cap'n you've got a point, I'll go make a post in the Village Dump." --Spintherism 03:55, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've long been of the opinion that Undictionary is mostly full of tripe. I've even thought about suggesting we get rid of it altogether to clean house around here, though I haven't actually mentioned it until now. Mediocre pages have their haven in Undictionary, and I think it dilutes humor of the site to a significant extent because users/admins seem disinclined to remove lame humor if there's the possibility that a page could become an Undictionary entry. If an entry is stupid, it should be deleted. If it has slight potential, but after a reasonable amount of time its potential is not met, it should be deleted. There's no reason to let bad humor live just because it's in a short Undictionary entry! As you say, they should be judged by their own merit.

Regarding the un-dictionaryish entries - even if pages are formatted as "proper" definitions, I still don't think that justifies having hundreds of short (often one-line) entries littering the site, especially when many of them are (and will be) weak. Maybe confine Undictionary to a page for each letter (i.e. Undictionary:A. Undictionary:B, as it's set up now), so we can preserve the content without having to deal with the many, many small Undictionary pages that plague fill the site. Just my opinion, of course. --—rc(t) 04:09, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've gotta go with Spintherism on this one. I've found the Undictionary to be 99.8% unfunny one-liners, and .2% unfunny multi-liners. =P Seriously, though...it's just an excuse to make crappy/lazy writers feel better about themselves. I've written some stinkbombs in my day, but at least I had the decency to come up with a paragraph or two! This just encourages shoddy workmanship. I say it's time to let it go.--RadicalX 04:13, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'll let you all in on a secret. Very very few of the MTU articles I've tagged make it to the Undictionary (and I think I've tagged around a thousand?). MTU to me is a marker for finding articles that the author doesn't care about, so they can be deleted a week later without complaint ("The plans were on file at Alpha Centauri for the last 4 years, good heavens mankind.") or so they'll be tended to by the original author (if they care enough to visit their page within a week). The problem is, there are so many new ones since the slashdotting (around 200 a day, I think) that it is hard to find the crap ones after they've left Special:Newpages. Special:Shortpages is clogged with Wilde: entries so is pretty useless for finding them.... I have moved some of the best, but rarely. The tag makes the process very clear. I would be for another tag, like "fix this up or we delete in one week", because I like there to be gradients. QVFD = "My neighbour is gay". VFD = long articles that have had some work, but are crap. MTU/newtag = short articles that might maybe improve. etc. My 2cents. --Splaka 04:26, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Another problem is that the sheer number of shoddy Undictionary entries makes it very hard to browse the site using the "random page" link. I'll bet a lot of visitors are put off by constant encounters with crap like this. It's sorta like our version of Wikipedia's countless bot-written pages on towns, battleships, etc. Except way more stupid.--Jordanus 04:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Under further divine inspiration, I made the following image: --Spintherism 04:48, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Point. If it doesn't seem like it would be funny to anyone, feel free to delete it. If you're ABSOLUTELY sure that it's in no way funny to anyone, admins can bypass QVFD. --Chronarion 05:18, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If anyone wants to try to salvage UD, I made LISP an example of a proper UD entry (but I'm currently too hungry to convert it to UD) since it started off with a definition and one of the Huff Gods decided to spare it. »BrigSirDawg | t | v | c» 15:18, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

UD, in its present form (ie: once it went from ten entries to several hundred rather quickly), is just a handy dumping ground for one-line fragments too insignificant to be encyclopædia articles while not quite weak enough to be QVFDable. What's there was generally moved there - it's very rare that anyone would have written entries intending them to land on this set of pages. The same could likely be said of {{rewrite}} and maybe some of the {{stub}}s are iffy too - they were marginal for QVFD so they were stubbed. The Special:Uncategorizedpages, Special:Shortpages and Special:Deadendpages also have more than their share of marginal text. I (like others) had gone through Uncategorisedpages a few months ago attempting to categorise what was passable, QVFD what was marginal and huff the worst of the one-line fragments, but like weeds the whole mess has long since grown back as thick as ever. Meanwhile, much of what survived previous QVFD attempts landed in UD, effectively creating a low-quality predecessor to the 1000 Uncyclopedians Typing Hamlet project.

The only reason these are separate entries instead of just {{subst: }}ing the lot onto the 26 alphabetical ick!tionary pages is that these were created in main article space as fragments and dumped in UD later as a QVFD alternative, keeping article history for articles which maybe should've been history. It's not that UD has become rubbish, it always was somewhere to dump rubbish. Unfortunately, the UD structure was reused for the Wilde quotes, creating more one-line fragments. Oh well... --Carlb 11:04, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't we just consolidate the undictionary into 26 pages and delete the rest? --Spintherism 14:23, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Consolidation sounds like a good idea in general, though I'd prefer that only those articles which actually could represent dictionary entries be kept in Undictionary. The rest can be moved back to the main namespace and marked as stubs, or deleted. --Algorithm 23:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)